Automation design
Automated legal intake with a person at the decision points.
Repeated preparation is a good place to automate. The system can create the lead, request records, parse uploads, schedule reminders, and route work while keeping source history and the responsible queue attached to every step. It needs a stop line before conflicts, engagement, qualification, legal conclusions, filing, or client advice.
Automate repeated preparation
Collection, routing, extraction, reminders, and queues can run consistently.
Review uncertain facts
Low-confidence or conflicting values should wait for an accountable person.
Keep decisions human
The firm controls conflicts, engagement, qualification, and legal judgment.
I · Good candidates
Begin with work that has a clear rule and a safe failure.
Lead creation, consent capture, document requests, duplicate checks, reminders, classification, extraction proposals, and queue routing are practical starting points.
Collection
Ask configured questions and request the expected records.
Preparation
Parse files, propose facts, and preserve source locations.
Routing
Assign gaps, exceptions, and overdue work to the right queue.
Reminders
Follow up on missing information without manual calendar work.
II · Stop lines
Consequential decisions need accountable review.
Conflict determinations, engagement, qualification standards, legal conclusions, filing, and client advice should remain with authorized people. The system can prepare the record and enforce the review gate.
Talk through your intake pathIII · Provenance
A proposed fact needs its source and status.
Store whether a value came from the prospect, a document, a recording, a calculation, or a staff edit. Keep confidence, conflict, correction, and approval history beside it.
IV · Rollout
Measure corrections before adding more automation.
Start with one case type. Track review time, missing evidence, false positives, corrections, exception age, and unauthorized advancement. Expand only after the team trusts the record.
Before you book
Questions worth settling first.
01Which legal intake tasks can be automated?
Lead creation, configured questions, document requests, reminders, classification, extraction proposals, and queue routing are common candidates.
02Which tasks require human review?
Conflicts, engagement, qualification standards, legal conclusions, filing, and client advice require authorized control.
03How does OBE handle uncertain extraction?
OBE can preserve confidence and source location, then route uncertain or conflicting values to a review queue.
04Should a firm automate every case type at once?
No. Start with one repeatable case type, inspect correction data, and add scope after the process is stable.
Related reading
Keep working through the intake problem.
Keep reading
The legal intake library.
Pick the question on your desk. The library covers workflow design, staffing, software, recorded calls, and mass-tort volume.
Product and operations descriptions are reviewed by Tim Ottowitz, Founder and CEO, OBE. This byline does not provide jurisdiction-specific counsel review. ArbitrationIntel and OBE provide software and operations information. Attorneys and authorized firm staff remain responsible for conflicts, engagement, qualification, legal judgment, filing, and client advice. The signed agreement sets product terms and operating limits.
Bring one case type
See where the file slows down.
Bring the questions, records, decisions, and handoffs your team uses today. We will map the intake path, find the repair work, and show how OBE keeps the source record under firm control.
Schedule a call